July 2015

How the Internet is ruining your memory

We're replacing the ability to recall specifics with the certainty that we have them stored somewhere or can look them up online later -- a sort of digital amnesia. And that's making us worse at remembering things, according to academic research on the topic. One journal article, published in Science in 2011, found that when people expect to have access to information online they are less likely to remember the actual facts, but more likely to remember how to find them. In effect, we are already becoming one with the machine: "We are becoming symbiotic with our computer tools, growing into interconnected systems that remember less by knowing information than by knowing where the information can be found," according to the Science article.

That's not necessarily a bad thing -- maybe it gives us more mental processing power to think through things. And we certainly have access to more knowledge now than ever, even if it's not all stored in our brains. But there are risks to this brave new world of memory outsourcing beyond losing our ability to recall who the 15th President was. (James Buchanan, just in case you were about to Google it.) That kind of information may always be a click away, but the important things -- the personal things, like the way your mom smiled at your wedding -- you want to remember might be harder to recall or find online. And if you're relying on your own archive of pictures or documents to keep track of those memories, the consequences of a lost, stolen or hacked hard drive are much more meaningful.

FCC Releases Final Version of TVStudy

The Federal Communications Commission has released its final version of the TVStudy software, which it will use to calculate interference protections and coverage areas in the repack of stations following the incentive auction, as well as initial coverages based on that final version. The National Association of Broadcasters had sued the FCC over its TVStudy update (based on more current census information), arguing that coverage areas and interference should have been based on the version used when the incentive auction legislation passed the Congress. The legislation directed the FCC to make its best effort to protect station signals and contours after the auction. The court upheld the FCC decision, paving the way for release of the info.

The FCC is asking for comment on that data, and points out that the stations list is not a final list of stations eligible for repacking and that it reflects current information which could, and likely will, change based on technical certifications by stations in advance of the auction. In fact, the FCC said it was putting the info out how in order to get more input, after which it will put out final baseline coverage areas "well in advance of the auction." Comments are due July 30.

What Hannibal's cancellation — and possible renewal — tells us about the future of TV

[Commentary] NBC's cancellation of "Hannibal" provides a window into the increasingly complicated world of TV economics -- and why shows that are canceled are more likely than ever to be uncanceled. Studios make shows, which they sell to networks. Networks collect ad revenue, but the studio collects almost every other form of profit.

In decades past, the TV network used to hold all the power, because it was the only distributor of television content. The studios that produced TV shows sold to a limited marketplace comprised of only a handful of content providers. Obviously, that's no longer the case, thanks to the rise of cable and streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon. So the balance of power has shifted toward the studios, and in many cases, the cancellation of a beloved show is less about a network ushering a show into the graveyard and more about it saying, "This doesn't work for us, but maybe it will work somewhere else." The impetus is ultimately on the studio to find that "somewhere else," something that is happening with increasing frequency.

An Inside Look at How Hillary Clinton Plays the Media

On June 30, the State Department released some 3,000 pages of e-mails between Hillary Clinton and her aides during her tenure as Secretary of State. Some of the more intriguing exchanges involved the media -- how her team sought to shape the news, the journalists they considered receptive to their message, and the close degree to which Clinton monitored how she was covered.

Much of this e-mail traffic involved Philippe Reines, a senior advisor and spokesman for Clinton known for his combative exchanges with the press. One e-mail thread that underscored the Clinton team's focus on message-control came in late May 2009, ahead of a meeting of the Organization of American States. Its member-nations span North and South America and were poised to vote on whether to revoke Cuba's decades-long suspension from OAS.

Why I Walked Out of Facial Recognition Negotiations

[Commentary] On June 16, consumer privacy advocates walked out of talks to set voluntary rules for companies that use facial recognition technology. They explained that they were withdrawing from the talks because industry would not agree to critical privacy protections. I was one of those advocates.

There is a growing divide in Americans’ right to privacy. As checks strengthen on government surveillance, tech companies are evading even basic limits on their ability to collect, share, and monetize your data. At the heart of this divide is an increasingly formidable force: industry lobbying. The fact is, there is an established business standard in favor of consumer choice. So why did companies reject a voluntary rule to codify it? I believe it had to do with the fact that most of the industry representatives in the room didn’t work for companies. Most of them came from industry associations -- entities that are financed by tech companies, advertisers, and retailers to lobby for their interests but are legally separate from their backers. The end result is a lobbying apparatus that is untethered from the realities of many of the businesses that it serves. You may have heard of “yes men.” In Washington we have “no men”: industry lobbyists whose primary purpose is to stop attempts to regulate their members’ products and services, and who have no product or brand that could be hurt by their efforts. The tech industry can increasingly afford a lot of no men.

[Alvaro Bedoya is the founding executive director of the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law]

The regulator of tomorrow

Regulators and regulations play a critical role in society -- but one that may need to evolve to remain relevant and effective in the face of technology-induced change.

Outgoing Twitter CEO: 'Regulation is a threat to free speech'

Twitter's outgoing CEO said that government rules endanger free expression. “I will say directly that I think regulation is a threat to free speech,” Dick Costolo said, when asked whether there might be merit to regulating Twitter like a utility. “I can’t think of an example where regulation didn’t have unintended consequences and I’m unable to conceive of a regulatory body that will be swift enough to deal with the constantly evolving issues of ethics, communication and technology. I just don’t think it’s possible.” Costolo's last day at Twitter is July 2.

Broadband and Home Values: FTTH Council Study Looks at Fiber Impact

How is gigabit service like a fireplace? Both amenities can increase an average home’s value by about $5,437, according to a new report released June 30. The report, written by researchers from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Carnegie Mellon University, was funded -- in part -- by the Fiber to the Home Council.

Single-family homes in areas where gigabit fiber service is available have a median value that is 3.1 percent higher than homes without fiber, researchers found. “When evaluated at the sample median house price of $175,000, [research suggests] that access to fiber may be associated with about a $5,437 increase in the typical home’s value,” the researchers wrote. “This is roughly equivalent to a fireplace or just under half the value of a bathroom.” Researchers based their findings on a nationwide sample of real estate transactions from 2011 to 2013 and used broadband availability information from the National Broadband Map. The study was based on data from 520,931 homes from 116,300 census block groups (CBGs) and 1,634 counties. Even where gigabit service isn’t available, home values get a lift of 1.8 percent when a local network operator has deployed fiber infrastructure capable of supporting speeds of at least 100 Mbps, researchers found.

Hispanic TV group asks FCC to broker carriage deal with DirecTV

ZGS Communications, a Hispanic-owned broadcaster with 9 Spanish-language Telemundo affiliates in some of the nation’s largest markets, told the Federal Communications Commission that DirecTV has “systematically denied” the group carriage on its service. The letter addressed to all five commissioners, was filed June 29 as part of the FCC’s ongoing review of AT&T’s acquisition of DirecTV.

In the letter, Ronald Gordon, CEO of ZGS asked the FCC to broker a mutually-acceptable carriage deal with DirecTV or the merged AT&T-DirecTV before approving the merger. “Despite numerous and on-going attempts, ZGS has experienced extraordinary difficulty in securing DirecTV carriage, which in turn denies a large number of Latino viewers and subscribers access to their local stations,” Gordon wrote. By denying carriage, Gordon accused DirecTV of misleading subscribers when it advertisers is carries all local stations. While the group did not take a position on the merits of the merger or whether it should be approved, ZGS said the merger offers the FCC the opportunity to address the “local programming/carriage dilemma” in the context of protecting the public interest of localism.

How to Stop Verizon from Screwing New York City

[Commentary] Late during the week of June 22, New York City’s internal tech auditors released a stunning seventeen-page report about Verizon and its performance in keeping its promise to the city and its inhabitants. In 2008 Verizon promised to make FiOS available to everyone in the city by June 30, 2014, and signed an agreement to that effect. It is a year past that date, and Verizon is simultaneously telling the city that its work is done while refusing or failing actually to connect residences.

Here’s a plan for New York City, one that has the potential to be a win for everyone concerned: Cut a different deal with Verizon. Make Verizon into the operator of a passive, neutral fiber network that (as in Seoul and Stockholm) is connected to every single home and business. (This would require an expanded network, which is necessary in any case.) Release Verizon from the shackles of serving customers and acquiring programming. Let other Internet service providers emerge that will actually have the relationships with customers. Set a reasonable price for provision of wholesale fiber access that Verizon must charge to any ISP. Result: a thriving, competitive retail marketplace for high-speed Internet access that reaches every single New Yorker (including, particularly, the 36 percent of the city’s residents who now don’t have a connection at home). Cheap prices for world-class data connections. Economic growth for the city, as it retakes its position as a global metropolis. Cheaper healthcare costs, as residents replace expensive in-person visits with equally in-person, but remote, contacts. And on and on.

[Susan Crawford is co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University]

Benton

Search